CURED - 2021-12-10

« first day (3620 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (860 days later) »

1:38 AM

Please consider closing PSQ.

2:17 AM

^^^^ My first message immediately above includes an incorrect link. Please, @Xander, or any room owner, move or remove that post. I cannot edit it this late. And until it's moved to trash, or removed, it will only confuse helpful users in this room.

amWhy

2:54 AM

Thanks, @ParamanandSingh !

Paramanand Singh

3:29 AM

@amWhy: I didn't know that you would notice.

But I guess I was wrong

The mobile chat which I use does not provide much information about who removed what message.

2 hours later…

SmokeDetector

5:44 AM

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly non-latin body (79): Could I ask a question which is Question 19.4.2, and i don't know where don't satisfy the condition of Question 19.4.1? ✏️‭ by 常俊基‭ on math.SE

2 hours later…

Paramanand Singh

7:40 AM

please check this for closure

2 hours later…

Paramanand Singh

9:15 AM

please check if this can be reopened

2 hours later…

Peter

11:44 AM

@ParamanandSingh I think, it is justified. I reopen-voted and also upvoted (in the comment I mention that I want to motivate the author to continue to improve his/her old posts.

Feeds

12:12 PM

Q: Prove that the sum of all positive divisors, including 1 but not N , is equal to N .

Can someone help me with this exercise? "Let n ∈ N be such that $p = 2^n − 1$ is a prime number. Define N = $2^{n−1}p$. List all positive integers which divide N . Prove that the sum of all positive divisors, including 1 but not N , is equal to N . A positive integer which is equal to the sum of ...

Peter

12:35 PM

@Feeds The original post was incorrect : "$p=2n-1$" in which case the criterion is not sufficient. I mentioned a slight hint and a summary of what we know about perfect numbers.

Arctic Char

D1, D2, D3, D4

D5, D6, D7, D8

D9, D10

1 hour later…

amWhy

1:49 PM

@ParamanandSingh Actually, I can't see anything Identifying you. It looks as if I had deleted it myself. But when I saw it no longer was in the room, as I requested, your were the most recent person in the room. I knew it had to have been a mod, else, if a room owner moved it to Trash, there'd be some indication "one message has been moved to trash" So I was 98.999... % sure you honored my wish! :-)

Feeds

2:18 PM

-1

Q: $e^{\gamma} \log \log n > \frac{\psi(n)}{n}$ for any $n>30$ is True, where $\gamma$ if Euler's constant, and $\psi$ the Dedekind function

I put at the disposal of this community my proposal to demonstrate one of the equivalences of the Riemann hypothesis. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1153490/v2 From my knowledge I see it robust, I would like to know your comments and criticisms. Thanks for your time

soft-question riemann-hypothesis

Xander Henderson

3:04 PM

cv-pls linear-algebra Can anyone find an actual question in here anywhere? The Cayley-Hamilton theorem and an explicit formula for the adjugate matrix.‭ - hm2020‭ 2021-12-09 13:11:48Z

Peter

3:17 PM

The Amplitwist

> Has this proof and these formulas appeared in the litterature? If yes I ask for a reference. Im also interested in the coefficients $a_i$.

Xander Henderson

@TheAmplitwist Jeez... that is really buried in there... :/

cv-pls real-analysis I'm on the fence about this one. There are some thoughts provided, but (personally) I don't think that they add much to the question. If I didn't have a super-close vote, I would probably vtc for lack of context. B is a Borel envelope of A iff any measurable subset of B\A has lebesgue measure 0‭ - YuerWu‭ 2021-11-25 15:30:31Z

Paramanand Singh

@amWhy impressive logical deduction :D

amWhy

3:33 PM

@ParamanandSingh :-)

@XanderHenderson Voted to close. Now closed and available for deletion.

Xander Henderson

@amWhy Yup. Thanks.

amWhy

3:50 PM

This very low quality question needs to stay closed, but with four reopen votes, I've voted to delete it, else yet another trivial edit may send it to the reopen queue, over and over, until it's reopened.

^^^The obscene thing about it, is the asker has over 5K in rep. shakes head in befuddlement.

amWhy

4:06 PM

Consider closing as opinionated, or personal advice. It's an enormously soft question, and quite unfocused. So "needs focus" could very well apply.

amWhy

4:24 PM

@Xander or @ParamanandSingh. If a former user with roughly 200K in rep, deleted their account after penalties under EoQS, rejoins, say within the past week, using the same username, and replicating past behavior (answering PSQs and Dupes), but given the "new" account has less than 500 rep, Can I nonetheless flag for moderator attention under EoQS? I ask, because I've already flagged to such answers. But will refrain if we have to pretend the user is a "new user".

Xander Henderson

@amWhy I have seen and handled your flags, marking them as "helpful". You may assume that we are aware of the issue, and that your flags were helpful.

amWhy

Thanks, @Xander. Got it!

rschwieb

C1: math.stackexchange.com/q/4329380/29335

amWhy

4:47 PM

@amWhy Thanks, @Xander.

user21820

5:13 PM

@XanderHenderson Some moderator declined my flag on Nov 21 regarding this, which makes no sense. I did what you requested and provided a screenshot, and linked to the appropriate chat message, but whoever declined my flag didn't even read it?

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

amWhy

@user21820 There has been a moderator of late that's declined more of my flags in one week, then I get in a year. I'm not suggesting it's one of are well chosen mods.

Xander Henderson

@user21820 I really don't think that there is much that I can say, as I don't think that I am the person who handled the flag.

If it was about not being able to recast delete votes, there has been a fair amount of internal discussion about this, and I don't think that we actually have a clear picture from SE about how that is supposed to work.

So I wouldn't take it too personally.

amWhy

(I meant, above in my last comment, I'm not suggesting it's one of our newly well chosen mods. I can't know for sure.)

I just ask that, just as users are warned against targeting other users, I think the same caution should hold for moderators, as well.. There are times for that. But someone seems to like to decline my low quality flags.

.... that I cast from review.

I have no problem with "disputed", if there are mixed votes in the low qual review queue. But when a mod goes out of their way to nail me four times in one week with declines of review generated responses, something is amiss, given my

very healthy flag record.

I'm done. :-)

Arctic Char

5:50 PM

4 hours later…

rschwieb

9:57 PM

C2: poster reposted this after it got closed as a duplicate a few hours ago

amWhy

10:07 PM

@rschwieb Reclosed as a dupe.

TheSimpliFire

After some internal discussion, we agree with the points here - the intention of the single vote to delete is to prevent delete/undelete wars, so in cases where the deletion doesn't go through, privileged users should be allowed to recast it, other restrictions allowing. I don't have a timeline for when this can be implemented but it's on our backlog to work on in the future. — Catija ♦ 1 min ago

« first day (3620 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (860 days later) »

all rooms